America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

No, I said that this is so important that we need to do something about it, even if we only consider it to be a possible problem, because if it is a real problem by the time we realize that it may be to late. Obviously you would have to read between the lines to get all of that.

So anything that MIGHT be a problem should be addressed via federal mandates.

Just in case.

No trish. I just don't know if the big red phone is unidirectional.

TG, I do not agree with federal anything. In fact in many ways for you and I it is a meaningless debate. From reading other articles, please don't ask for reference as I do not remember, the true danger point is hundreds if not thousands of years away. I would want any solutions to come from scientific study that has no agenda attached to it. Even if the possibility of great environmental damage is minimal I do not want to take that risk for future generations. I know this is very Don Quixote like and will seem incorrect to many people, but it does not change the fact that this is what I feel. I would not trust the government on this in any way shape or form.

I intend to follow their lead unless I see it as a possible detturant to becoming independent and self sufficient which is a variable you didn't consider but warran buffet does.

Demanding a scientific answer.......ok.

I don't think they love me they just hate taxes and the government.

By the way that is common estate planning advice and practice assuming you trust the dolts.

Yep. If you love your folks. :) It then becomes another economic test.

Anyway, it's common advice and it's well known. But a lot of people don't do it.

LOL, everyone has their faults! Actually I have only smoked 1 cigar since December 14th to help the environment do there you have it.... oh wait that might have been due to the open heart surgery. Any how debating this issue with you has been fun. But don't get me started on the butterfly that caused a hurricane! Hope you have a great weekend.

Tail... you are incorrect on this one. First off, the concept of "maximizing happiness" is an economic concept. Don't think that I'm interjecting my own personal beliefs regarding love and happiness here. This is simple economics, not psychology. Second, assuming that you have a problem with "love and happiness" being equated with money, you forget that there is no trade off here. The parents are still the same people who have treated their children whatever way they've treated them their whole life. The only decision being made at the moment is "Do I give my children a percentage of this money now, so that they can receive 100% of it, or do I keep the money for myself and when my children get it, they will only receive 75% of it (or whatever the tax rate is)?" They are still going to hug their kids just as much as before. But they are making a decision as to whether their kids will have a maximal amount of money now, or a smaller amount later (and using it themselves in the meantime). Most people apparently choose to use it themselves and give their kids less at a later time.

Secondly, you're assuming that there is some sort of "mortgaging of the future" for a "potentially infinitesimal effect". You do know what another word for "potentially infinitesimal effect" is, right? "Potentially enormous effect". seriously, that's like the most meaningless statement. you're claiming that this unknown fix to an environmental problem is 1, going to mortgage the future (... without even seeing it you know this) and 2, may have the potential chance to have a small effect, or may have the potential chance to have a medium effect, or may have the potential chance of having a huge effect.

Your answer smacks of a lack of caring for your kids. I mean, if I had kids... and if I liked them (lets not get too hasty... they'd likely be sh#theads) my answer would be something like "huh, well, we should probably find a way to fix that... and if it's going to be really expensive, perhaps we should find a way to cut costs elsewhere... maybe we should involve other nations in resolving the issue. Hey, I wonder if there's a way I could make money off this so I could increase the amount of money I can leave to my kids too." Or something to that extent, I don't know... I'm sure 98.2% of kids are sticky little sh@ts, so I really don't blame parents for not liking them that much. I just find the hypocrisy amusing. :)

Where do you get this stuff Victor? Cut and past from 'Misanthrope Weekly'?

You're imagining this as if we were comparing two different people... try looking at this as an intellectual exercise. One parent. They have done (or not done) all the balancing of work and play, they have (or haven't) been a happy parent. ALL those decisions have been made and done in the present and the future. We arent' comparing a wealthy ass with a poor parent who does everything... that's just a distraction. The only decision we are looking at is how they view the disposition of money.

The collection of decisions around the money boils down to a single concept: Do you try to maximize the wealth your children will have access to over their lifetime, or do you try to maximize the wealth you have access to over your entire lifetime.

In all fairness, a dam bursting and killing an entire town has much less lasting effects than what is discussed when you talk about environmental damage. Global environmental changes aren't really reversible. It's more likely they would stabilize in whatever state they find themselves. Something which is likely to not be ideal for us. This is significantly different than just the death of thousands of people.

Don't get me wrong. I'm still not advocating we do anything about it. The environment will be fine for the next 50 years, and I don't have children. After my death the planet can burn as far as I'm concerned. So I'm totally cool with everyone who doesn't care about their kids either. I mean, not doing anything regardless of risk in the end actually maximizes my happiness, so that's good. I just find it hilarious how people think in regards to the long term.

Every time you make the argument, I'm pretty sure you aren't understanding the set-up.

I'm not talking about your cash flows, your cigar spending, your vacations (although, that would be an interesting discussion in and of itself, but is NOT part of this), I'm talking money saved over the years. Lets say you have $2MM saved up for your retirement in a 401K. You turn 65 and can pull money out penalty free at this point. Your children are probably around 30.

Your options with your retirement money are either: 1) Keep it in your hands, use it as necessary to pay your retirement expenses. Eventually you die and any remainder is given to your kids after they are taxed by the government. 2) Disburse the maximum tax free amount to your children annually, use what is in your hands to pay your retirement expenses. If you die before disbursing everything to your children, the remainder is taxed by the government. If you have disbursed everything to your children, they are then responsible for supporting the rest of your retirement expenses until you eventually die, at which point all remaining assets are already in their hands and untaxed.

As you can see, I'm not talking about "do I have an expensive cigar, or buy my kid braces" decisions... those are interesting enough, but probably not as clear cut. I'm talking decisions where you are sacrificing nothing (unless you don't trust your kids to help you when you run out of money) but are provided with the opportunity to maximize your kids wealth.

Choice Votes Statistics
No, it’s just made up by the left wing Liberals. 7 12 %
Maybe, it’s a natural cycle - not really man made. 32 56 %
Yes, it largely caused by industrial pollution. 18 31 %



Where this board is at today...looks like a runaway train.

Again.
You equate wealth to happiness and to "proof" of their love.

I know exactly what you're saying. I just disagree on every level.

He can't afford awareness...the chinaman took his job!

How 'bout "Chi-com"?

Are you suggesting that we have a “minimum awareness” rule imposed???

Fear not the man with small hands and two sticks, for the bird is the cousin or the owl – in bed.

Just to keep current, when we last polled our studio audience only 1/3 agreed with the overwhelming scientific evidence the climate change is being driven by "us".

I was just wondering if we passed the 50% mark yet.

I think you just said "considering 1/4 of our country is absolute morons, 1/3 of them being idiots isn't that bad"....

That's great if the 1/4 is a subset of the 1/3... but what happens if it's two separate non-overlapping groups completely? We'd be faced with 7/12ths of our country being either a moron, or an idiot.

Of course, it could be two separate, randomly overlapping groups in which case 1/4 is an idiot, 1/6 is an absolute moron, 1/12 of our country is both an idiot and an absolute moron, and 1/2 of our country is none of the above.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain'

I think I'll start a new campaign... 'Global Cooling' sounds good... I can just reuse the same made up stats the Global Warming people used and I'll be rich..!!

We did the global cooling panic in the 1970s with a surge in glaciation being imminent.

Personally, I like the global warming game better than the global cooling game although I could probably figure out how to make money off it as well.

You gotta admit, rapidly flooding coastal cities is a lot more motivating image than people in upstate New York staring at the leading edge of a glacier and screaming in terror as it advances three inches per year. People be like hitting it with sticks....and stuff.

To be fair, one does not have to be the cause of something to be able to cure it. Just as even if something is naturally occurring is not a reason for us to not "cure" it.

If we as a species (well, not the entire species... lets say "first world contingent of our species") are reasonably sure that the current climate of the planet is "ideal" for our needs (and I mean taking everything into account... water available for drinking, sea levels in regards to low-lying trailer parks, climate for growing sufficient food to feed our populations (first world population... who cares about the rest)...) then it would behoove us to try to lock the climate down in the current state.
l,